Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 18:02 UTC, submitted by viator
Legal If you can't compete, litigate. This train of thought has been quite prevalent among major technology companies as of late, most notably by Apple and Microsoft, who both cannot compete with Android on merit, so they have to resort to patent lawsuits and FUD. Both Asustek and Acer have revealed that Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees upon the two Taiwanese hardware makers to prevent them from shipping Android and/or Chrome OS devices.
Thread beginning with comment 447483
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Anti-competitive?
by l3v1 on Thu 28th Oct 2010 19:57 UTC in reply to "Anti-competitive?"
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

How does protecting these patents make Microsoft anti-competitive?


Well, I don't know about you [well, actually I do, as your comment is telling enough], but not settling those eventual patent issues in court with Google, instead trying to gather some arbitrary amount of cash from whatever manufacturers doesn't seem to be a nice move to say the least, and it's definitely not the way any kind of patent disputes should be dealt with.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Anti-competitive?
by pallen38 on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:09 in reply to "RE: Anti-competitive?"
pallen38 Member since:
2010-10-28

"...doesn't seem to be a nice move to say the least, and it's definitely not the way any kind of patent disputes should be dealt with"

They are protecting their interests, and the law gives them this right. Is it 'nice'? No. Is it 'anti-competitive' in the legal sense? No.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti-competitive?
by irbis on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-competitive?"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

They are protecting their interests, and the law gives them this right. Is it 'nice'? No. Is it 'anti-competitive' in the legal sense? No.

Too bad but in this world those who have the money and the power often seem to decide which rules are accepted as common laws in a society (for example, the nonrealistic US software patent system that has quickly become a huge mess ridiculed by practically everyone already). However, in modern democracy laws should quarantee that eryone is treated equally. Laws should not just serve the interests of those who have more money and power in their hands, if we don't want to descend back to primitive totalitarianism.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Anti-competitive?
by _Nine_ on Fri 29th Oct 2010 15:59 in reply to "RE: Anti-competitive?"
_Nine_ Member since:
2010-10-13

Microsoft isn't doing this for the money or because its products can't compete on merit. On the contrary, several Windows Phone 7 reviews indicate otherwise. Rather, this move is to "encourage" these manufacturers to sign OEM agreements for Windows Phone 7 and whatever else the company has in store for the device market. If they sign up as OEMs, Microsoft likely will "look the other way" regarding the patent issues.

Basically, Microsoft is saying that it's easier (and maybe cheaper) to just do business with Microsoft. If these companies explicitly do NOT do business with Microsoft, well, MS is going cause you some headaches since you're effectively competing with them by selling Android devices. Are the patents valid? Maybe, maybe not. But either way, the system is what it is and MS is going to use it to its advantage. It's called leverage. Conversely, the manufacturers are free to use the system as well. They can give MS the finger and let it play out in the courts.

For the people saying there "should be laws against this kind of stuff," there also should be laws against unlawfully obtaining things and then using or re-distributing them at will. Oh wait, there are such laws--patent laws. You're approaching it with a biased perspective and are automatically assuming that these patents are absurd, that Google and the OEMs aren't doing anything wrong and it's just a result of MS's inability to field a competitive product. I'm not saying that's not the case here and the system surely needs improvement, particularly around what is and isn't patented and what that means. But, if your technology should be protected and the patents used to do it are valid, then is it so wrong to actually enforce the system, regardless of the competitive landscape?

Edited 2010-10-29 16:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti-competitive?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 16:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-competitive?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're approaching it with a biased perspective and are automatically assuming that these patents are absurd


Yes.

Because they're software patents. Ergo, they are absurd.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Anti-competitive?
by JAlexoid on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-competitive?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft isn't doing this for the money or because its products can't compete on merit. On the contrary, several Windows Phone 7 reviews indicate otherwise. Rather, this move is to "encourage" these manufacturers to sign OEM agreements for Windows Phone 7 and whatever else the company has in store for the device market. If they sign up as OEMs, Microsoft likely will "look the other way" regarding the patent issues.


Yes, we know their OEM "deals". Witch is as much about racketeering as it is about giving access to their systems. Why racketeering? Because the payments are usually bound by the total number of devices manufactured, and not by the number of devices with tech that is licensed under the OEM agreement.

When you buy a non Windows HTC phone in Europe, you pay MS for a patent that is not valid in Europe!

Reply Parent Score: 2